The 3 things that I think people need to internalize with their training: Lift heavy, run fast and stretch hard. Of course, each of these will be determined by the individual and his/her needs. But the point is any good total training program will address strength, conditioning and some kind of mobility/flexibility."

"You're sad? That people are mean? Well, I'm sorry but the world isn't one big liberal arts college campus... You want to put all your shit up on the internet and have every single person say 'Hooray!' for you. Fuck you. You're all pricks."

Wait, Did ‘South Park’ Just Make A Good Point About Body Shaming?: "South Park’s “Safe Space” episode doesn’t troll. Instead, it asks a totally legitimate question: If you call public attention to your body, are you not opening yourself up to criticism? If you post a picture of yourself nearly naked on Instagram, doesn’t that mean you want people to talk about your body? It’s harsh, sure, but it’s true. And if you don’t want to hear the bad with the good, there’s always that unspoken option: Stay off social media.

...the character of Butters is tasked with weeding out all the negative comments on social media. “Lena Dunham a put a picture of her asshole on Twitter and only wants the positive comments,” he panics, while Lovato (in cartoon form) sits behind him and says, “People have to accept my body the way it is!” Later, the cast sings a song with lyrics like, “Everyone likes me and thinks I’m great in my safe space / People don’t judge me and haters don’t hate in my safe space / Bully proof windows, troll-safe doors rainbows all around me / There is no shame in my safe space.” The “safe space” is a magical world in which only the positive comes through, sort of like the oft-criticized generation in which kids are told they’re perfect and deserve everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. It might sound like a good idea, but it’s actually a nightmare. "

Unlike what many people believe, the "old days" were not paradise. It was only "paradise" if you were Ali`i. The Ali`i owned everything, the land, the people and the resources. If you didn't work or were unproductive, you were either killed or banished. There were no "lazy Hawaiians" allowed back then.
Most Hawaiians that I speak to feel that we are "owed" what was "taken away" from us. The White Man, with the help of the U.S. government, they feel, "stole" our land. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government should step up and give us the same recognition and consideration that has already been bestowed on other indigenous peoples -- the American Indian and Eskimo.
However, we still need to get the facts straight before we make claims that aren't based on the truth...

The White Man and the U.S. government were just another conquering entity that took control. This happened all over the world; the early Hawaiians were no different. When the first Hawaiians arrived in these islands, there was another race of people living here, already. These people were, probably, what are now known as the "Menehune," the "little people." These people coexisted in peace and harmony for decades. Then the Tahitian migration came to these Islands. The existing people were enslaved, killed, tortured and abused for almost a thousand years by the first "Hawaiians" from Tahiti. Before the White Man came, who else tried to take control of these islands and finally prevailed? Kamehameha I, of course. For years, he tried to conquer Kahekili to become the sole ruler of the Hawaiian Islands. He only succeeded after the White Man came. Kamehameha I captured two Englishman and appropriated muskets and cannon. We all know what happened then. Why doesn't anyone say how terrible Kamehameha I was? If he was white and did what he did, he would be the most hated figure in our history.

Why is Kamehameha I, who killed more Hawaiians than anything else -- excluding disease -- now known as the "conqueror of the islands" who became a famous hero? Back in those days, the people living here did not consider themselves as one entity. They were one race of "Hawaiians." There were three distinct groups. There were the people from the Big Island led by Kamehameha I. There were the people from Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Oahu and Molokai who were under the rule of Kahekili. Meanwhile, Kauai had its own king and the people there were very different from people on the other islands, especially in physical stature and language."

Can we believe that the other "Hawaiians," not under Kamehameha I, really wanted to be "united" and brought under one rule? Of course not. Especially, when they all knew that the price for this "unity" would be paid for with their own blood. Remember, Kamehameha and his army had tried, previously, on several occasions to conquer Kahekili who, along with his people, knew very well from past experience how brutal and ferocious Kamehameha I, his war chief Kekuhaupio and their warriors were. They already knew first hand the price of "unity." Let's quit trying to glorify the slaughter of thousands of Hawaiians and turn it around as though it was a "good thing." It happened because Kamehameha I was just doing his thing as the "Warrior King" that he was. Kamehameha I was a remarkable man of "his time" and should not be judged, revered or immortalized using present day parameters of reason, justice, ethics, morals, and that sort of thing. Think about this: Did you know that Kamehameha made John Young, Ali`i Nui and gave him rule over most of the Big Island? He remained Ali`i Nui until he died after a long, long life. And what if, during the battles involved in Kamehameha's quest to "unite" these Islands, the king had been severely wounded? On his death bed, would he have gathered all his war chiefs and made them swear allegiance to Ali`i Nui John Young? Imagine the invasion that would have continued after Kamehameha's death with Ali`i Nui Young as the supreme commander! Remember, John Young and Isaac Davis were a very integral part of Kamehameha's success in defeating the chiefs of Maui and Oahu.) Would we be celebrating "John Young Day" instead of Kamehameha Day? I don't think so, do you?"

Another thought to consider: We want the U.S. government to pay repatriations to us Hawaiians. What about the descendants of Kahekili? Shouldn't the descendants of Kamehameha I reimburse those displaced descendants of Kahekili and the other Hawaiians not from Kamehameha I and his legacy? Who gets paid reparations, first, and from whom? Forget about it, move on! Before the White Man came, there was a very strict caste system in place. Do you know from whom you are descended? Where would you be now if we were still a monarchy? Look around, you can see for yourself who the descendants of Kamehameha are -- Campbell Estate, Bishop Estate, Parker Ranch and others. How big are your land holdings? Most of us are, probably, descendants of (lower castes)."

Buffy always got it. Well, Spike did, at least.

"You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not goin' around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story."

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Free Speech at UCLA - The Atlantic: "A half-century ago, student activists at the University of California clashed with administrators during the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, a series of events that would greatly expand free-speech rights of people at public colleges and universities.
Today, activists at UCLA are demanding that administrators punish some of their fellow students for expressive behavior that is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

In the past, free-speech clashes have turned on whether Americans have the right to criticize their own government during wartime, to march as neo-Nazis past the homes of Holocaust survivors, to submerge a crucifix in urine, or to burn the United States flag. All of those things, the courts have ruled, are protected speech. What did UCLA students find so outrageous as to warrant the violation of the fundamental right to free expression? A “Kanye Western” theme party where students wore costumes that parodied rap superstar Kanye West and his celebrity wife, Kim Kardashian. For this, UC student activists would squander their inheritance.

Last week, when this controversy began, many news outlets reported that some of the fraternity and sorority members who attended the “Kanye Western” theme party wore blackface. While that offensive behavior would not change the First Amendment analysis to come, there is no evidence for the claim: The Greek organizations deny it and no published photographs from the party depict anyone in blackface. “We have been asked to respond specifically to rumors that some guests attended the event in blackface,” the fraternity said in a statement. “It is important that we put this rumor to rest. Some of our guests attended the event dressed as miners in reference to the Kanye West song ‘Gold Digger,’ but their attire had nothing to do with race.”The Huffington Post has published a photograph that seems to confirm this explanation: a group of girls pose with a bit of soot smudged on their faces, but not covering it, and there can be no doubt that they are attempting to dress as miners, or “gold diggers,” because they are all holding plates of “gold” as if panning for it. Others who objected to the theme party deemed it an example of cultural appropriation, a “microaggression” against black students, or deeply insensitive and hurtful."

...substantive debates are healthy and both sides raise plausible points. It is salutary for collegians to contest such matters in the student newspaper, on campus, and on social media... What’s unhealthy is the movement to suppress free speech at UCLA. University administrators bear the most culpability. After hearing objections to the theme party, but before finishing an investigation into it, UCLA officials suspended the social activities of the fraternity and sorority, effectively punishing them without due process even as these same officials publicly acknowledged that they didn’t have all the facts. Moreover, university officials are abusing their authority merely by investigating protected speech in the first place. And the student newspaper is cheering them on, demanding in an editorial that the office of UCLA Fraternity and Sorority Relations take a more active role in preemptively clearing all party themes...

As the ACLU once explained in answer to the question of why it sometimes mounts defenses of speech that is racist or promotes intolerance: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s. The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened.""

...The notion that university money is best spent paying someone to sit in an office vetting the themes of fraternity parties sounds like the premise of a SNL skit. To deflect criticisms like these, defenders of the student activists are using the increasingly common tactic of treating the fringe position of a small number of ideologically homogeneous progressives as if it were equivalent to the opinion of all black people. “When black students share their hurt and disappointment with something like the ‘Kanye Western’ party, too often we respond with the way we see things, and it’s usually accompanied with criticism about how incorrect we think the black point of view is,” Chris Tang, who is not black, writes in another op-ed in The Daily Bruin. “But there’s an issue with this because we are implicitly saying that we understand the black point of view, when in reality, many of us don’t.”"

...There is nothing wrong with a black student being offended by a theme party, and attempts to articulate such grievances ought to be met with open-mindedness and compassion. ​And frats and sororities should be more sensitive to how their actions will be received. But there is no “black point of view,” a prejudicial notion that is so easily refuted that it’s a wonder anyone invokes it. There are plenty of black people––a majority, I would wager––who understand better than many other Americans the importance of the First Amendment to the history of the civil-rights movement and the future of other civil-rights causes. As if to underscore that point, the Los Angeles Times highlighted an open letter sent to UCLA by Michael Meyers, president of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. He said that “as an African American civil rights leader” he had to speak out. “We are increasingly alarmed—and distressed—by the failure of public university officials to support free speech and diversity of opinion on campus,” he wrote in the letter to UCLA’s chancellor. “Diversity of opinion surely includes the right of students to contest orthodoxy and to poke fun at popular culture and celebrities.” That is exactly right, and UCLA administrators should publicly apologize for acting to the contrary rather than caving to the illegal demands of student activists."

Never Take a Woman Fishing |: "The problem with preplanned ‘date nights’ is the same problem men experience with trying to pull a woman into his Frame by insisting she take up one of his hobbies or passions; it’s contrived and feels disingenuous to her. The point of the experience becomes about her being involved in it and not the actual doing of whatever it is you do together. The vibe becomes one of him making and controlling that experience so it becomes something pleasurable for her to participate in rather than really finding some inherent reward from it due to genuine interest.
Thus you get guys who (figuratively) take their women fishing and the event becomes more about introducing her to it than actually catching fish. Guys get so caught up in controlling unpleasant variables for her that the real experience of fishing is something entirely different. They want that woman to feel the same joy he does in doing something intrinsically rewarding to him, but the truth of it is she must come to it on her own.

Always Maintain Your Individualism

And this leads us back, once again, to establishing and maintaining a positive, dominant and individualistic Frame with a woman. She must want to enter your reality for it to be a genuine desire on her part – you cannot lead her into it, she must enter it of her own volition. Spontaneity is the key. Whether it’s an ‘insta-date’ from a PUA perspective, or an unexpected twist of plans in your marriage, that woman must want to participate in that event, in that moment of her own accord.
A good test of genuine interest with a woman is less about how open she is to trying “your things” and more about how insistent she is instigating her own participation in them."

My Favorite Upper Body Lift | T Nation: "The press is slow to improve, much more so than any lower body lift and slower than the bench press. This can be frustrating for the lifter and cause them to give up. Welcome to the world of weight training. Increases are not linear and there are setbacks. Strong people persevere in life and in the weight room. Get stronger. Be patient. You aren't going to get any sympathy from veterans."

I do want to make one thing abundantly clear before we continue, though. The title “In Defense of Low Fat” doesn’t imply its inverse, “In Attack of High Fat.” Quite the opposite! My goal here is to create a space where two very different dietary approaches can sit down for tea, respectfully coexist, and interact without any subsequent homicide investigations. In fact, I’ll be arguing for a more panoramic view of nutrition where the success of both high-fat and low-fat diets are compatible, and maybe even make sense. It just requires zooming out farther than we’re used to looking, and acknowledging that our ever-rivaling communities could actually learn a lot from each other."